Mitha Singh vs Mohan Singh

L.N. Mittal, J.—Judgment-debtor (JD) Mitha Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning order dated 20.11.2004 (Annexure P-8), passed by learned Executing Court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-6), moved by JD-petitioner for dismissing the execution petition filed by respondent Mohan Singh-decree-holder (DH), for executing the decree dated 30.08.1994, passed vide judgment of even date (Annexure P-1), thereby decreeing the suit of respondent-DH against petitioner-JD for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.01.1989. JD, in his application (Annexure P-6), alleged that the DH has not deposited the balance sale consideration within time, as directed in judgment and decree dated 30.08.1994 and that the Court at Nawanshahr has no territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the execution petition. The DH, by filing reply (Annexure P-7), controverted the averments of the JD. It was alleged that the sale deed, pursuant to the decree, has already been executed and DH had already deposited the balance sale consideration with permission of the Court. The JD did not file objections before the sale deed was executed.

Learned Executing Court, vide order (Annexure P-8), has dismissed the application moved by JD. Feeling aggrieved, JD has filed this revision petition to assail the said order.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

As regards territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Nawanshahr, the Village was transferred to Samrala on 20.07.1995 i.e. after passing of judgment and decree dated 30.08.1994. As regards territorial jurisdiction for execution proceedings, the same was transferred to the Court at Samrala, which had territorial jurisdiction, pursuant to notification dated 20.07.1995. Consequently, the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction has been rightly over-ruled.

Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that balance sale consideration was not deposited by the DH within period of two months fixed vide judgment and decree dated 30.08.1994, and therefore, the decree became inexecutable. The contention is completely devoid of merit. Relief granted vide judgment dated 30.08.1994 (Annexure P-1) is reproduced herein:-

13 In view of my findings on the foregoing issue, suit of plaintiff is decreed with costs. The defendant is directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within 2 months from the date of this order as the land is under mortgage with the State Bank of Machhiwara. It is ordered that the plaintiff may deposit the balance amount in the said bank and pay the remaining amount, if any, to the defendant. In case the plaintiff fails to execute the sale deed within 2 months the defendant may get the deed executed through the process of the court. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to the records.

A bare perusal thereof reveals that there was no stipulation in the said judgment that DH had to deposit the balance sale consideration within two months of the passing of the decree. On the contrary, the JD-defendant had to execute the sale deed within two months of the judgment and decree. The DH had to pay mortgage money in State Bank and had to pay the balance amount, if any, to the JD at the time of the sale deed. There was no direction in the judgment and decree for depositing the balance sale consideration with the Court at all, much less within any stipulated period. Consequently, there is no basis for the contention raised by counsel for the petitioner.

In addition to the aforesaid, notice of the execution petition had been given to the JD. He failed to raise any such objection before execution of the sale deed. After execution of the sale deed, the JD cannot be permitted to raise any such objection. The sale deed was executed on or before 06.03.2002 as per note in the file of the Executing Court. However, application (Annexure P-6) moved by the JD is dated 12.11.2003. Thus, at the said belated stage, long after execution of the sale deed, the aforesaid objection regarding non-deposit of balance sale consideration could not be raised by the JD. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that application (Annexure P-6) filed by JD-petitioner has been rightly dismissed by the Executing Court. Impugned order of the Executing Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality and jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed.